The limits of Government intervention - 24th Sept

In politics, it isn't so much whether you are on the left or on the right. Whether you are an interventionist, or a libertarian, is more important.

You don't have to be on the Left to be a meddler or a "Nanny Stateist". The Conservative "Clause 28" which banned local authorities from promoting homosexuality, was an example of right-wing meddling.

As a general rule, people enter politics because they think that Something Should Be Done. The trend is for more and more people to be employed by government for the purpose of Doing Something, they are paid a lot of money that is taken away from us in taxes, and they create ever more layers of rules and regulations. But an objective survey of whether we are happier or more fufilled people as a result of these rules would conclude that we are anything but happy.

It's a basic principle of life that when something happens that you don't like, you should ask yourself what you are doing to perpetuate it. Just the other day, I began to realise how I myself had fallen into the political trap of wanting Something To Be Done, and it also came clear to me how there could be another way.

It was when I heard that a very rich individual had recently died. In case her lawyers are reading this, I will not name her. She had a reputation for being not only extremely rich, but extremely mean. She had had a number of relationships: mostly, as she got richer, with very wealthy men, as she did not want the sort of man who would marry her for her money. As a result, she had children, all of whom she had quarrelled with. Most of her fortune, which was numbered in the billions of pounds, had been left for the upkeep of family pets.

When I heard this, I said, "It should be the law that domestic pets cannot benefit from legacies". Then I realised what I had said. I had just advocated adding to our legislation, creating more rules for legal brains to find ways of circumventing, and not dealing with the root of the problem. That problem is that people don't have family harmony.

The rich, as well as the poor, would have happier lives if they were truly empowered to build fulfilling relationships. In the case of this woman who had just died, she was a business genius, a giant in the field of commerce, but a pygmy in the field of family life. For people like that, making money is an addiction and a way of escape. If you are beavering away creating a huge fortune and seeing nothing else, you can thereby become oblivious of the fact that your family hates you. Also, it's much more socially acceptable than turning to drink or drugs. The effect, however, is very much the same.

But when we empower ourselves to get to grips with family issues properly, then we won't need rules specifying to what we can and can't leave our money. We will all want to ensure that however little or much we die with, it will be fairly distributed.

Therefore, it will work better if the Government rowed back on making more rules, and concentrated its mind on making life easier for people.

Take cycling as an example: on page 39 of today's Standard, Andrew Neather explains that as more of us have taken up cycling, the cycle shops are seizing on the opportunity to sell us a whole lot of clutter as "must-have" cycling accessories. At the moment, every time we decide to change our way of life towards greater environmental harmony, the business world tries to make it into a chance to make more money. This is in part because, for many, cycling is impratical for the less well-off. For example, it's very difficult to find somewhere safe to leave your bike at work, unless you are the business owner, in which case you simply wheel it inside your office.

The role of the Government in such circumstances would not be to make more rules. Rather, it could build a bicycle factory somewhere, and offer everybody a free bike every so many years. Then, everyone would have the incentive to cycle. We would all be on at the local authorities to construct secure bike storage areas. The health, and reduced congestion, benefits would be obvious.

Similarly, if the Government is concerned about fossil fuel depletion, it would be much easier to offer grants and incentives for people to have solar panels, or indeed just give everyone a solar panel, than it would be to pass a lot more laws.

Government by empowerment is what I am searching for.

My opinions on anything are subject to change. My love for you will not change.